Britain is doing a third of what is needed to tackle climate change, according to the WWF, despite Government efforts to go green.
By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent 7:00AM GMT 23 Nov 2010
In the first attempt to analyse the policies of all EU countries, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) rated countries between A for excellent to G for poor.
Overall most countries are doing badly, with none of the 27 member states scoring above D.
This means that Europe is doing half what it needs to do to stop global temperatures rising in the future.
The UK rating was even worse, scoring E, below Ireland, Sweden, Denmark and Germany.
The grade means the UK is doing only a third of what is necessary to put our own economy on track towards a key domestic target to cut emissions by 80 per cent by 2050.
Britain is particularly bad at ensuring buildings are energy efficient and is failing to improve public transport or switch to electric cars. Already Government advisers have warned ministers that there needs to be tougher regulations and more incentives to insulate homes, boost recycling and encourage greener lifestyles. However Government policy on building more wind farms and reducing the emissions from agriculture won points.
Countries like Romania and Poland, that continue to burn a lot of coal, scored F.
Keith Allott, WWF’s head of climate change in the UK, said Britain needs to triple efforts to reduce emissions.
"Time is very short and prompt action has to start immediately,” he said.
:: A separate report found that ‘dirty industries’ like cement, steel and chemical factories are lobbying the EU not to increase its short term target to reduce emissions from 20 to 30 per cent cuts by 2020.
The 2020 target is key in negotiating a global agreement as part of United Nations talks. Poor nations refuse to increase their own emissions until rich states like the EU take action.
The UN meets in Cancun, Mexico later this month for the latest round of talks.
The last major meeting in Copenhagen failed and it is feared this summit will also falter unless the EU and other rich nations take the lead.
However Oxfam said heavy industry is “sabotaging” efforts to increase the target by claiming it will harm economies.
Tuesday, 23 November 2010
Energy Industry Strikes Out on Its Own
By REBECCA SMITH
A group of utility executives who once lobbied Congress to cap greenhouse-gas emissions say they are now pressing ahead with their own efforts to clean up the industry.
"We're making our own destiny," said Chris Gould, vice president of corporate strategy for Exelon Corp. in Chicago, the nation's largest owner of nuclear-power plants and one of the biggest backers of the failed "cap and trade" legislation.
The new, take-charge attitude is motivated not only by environmental concerns. The industry has identified what it believes are opportunities to make lucrative investments in such things as transmission lines, advanced meters, enhancements to existing power plants, and electric vehicle infrastructure.
In a blueprint released last week, Exelon executives said their 13-state region could achieve reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions nearly equal to what federal legislation might have achieved in the next decade by pressing ahead with activities already encouraged by state and federal regulators.
Exelon plans to spend more than $5 billion by 2017 in ways that should cut its greenhouse-gas emissions. It includes as much as $290 million a year on energy-efficiency programs at utilities it owns in Illinois and Pennsylvania and $3.8 billion to increase the capacity of its existing nuclear plants by up to 1,500 megawatts.
Bob Shapard, chief executive at Oncor, an energy-delivery company in Dallas, said in an interview that smart meters, electric cars and big transmission projects—such as those able to ferry wind power to cities from remote locations—could trim greenhouse-gas emissions significantly and were a worthy focus of utility investment.
Utility investing over the next few years is likely to develop differently than it would have under a cap-and-trade law. That legislation would have done more to encourage construction of new nuclear plants, for example, by raising the cost of emissions for fossil-fuel generators.
But federal cap-and-trade legislation faltered on fears that it would raise energy and manufacturing costs, making U.S. products costlier at a time when other nations, such as China, are resisting emission limits. The coal lobby also opposed the legislation, which likely would have accelerated the shuttering of old coal-fired power plants.
Some utilities had supported cap-and-trade proposals because they wanted regulatory certainty. The industry often invests in assets with a life of 50 or 60 years, and utilities wanted a federal energy plan that would reduce risk in such investments.
Ted Craver, chief executive of energy company Edison International in Rosemead, Calif., said his company had made every effort to advance greenhouse-gas legislation and that he wasn't keen on investing a lot of time in pleading the case again.
But even though the utilities won't now have the benefit of federal legislation, laws passed in many states require utilities to obtain more energy from renewable or cleaner sources.
Lew Hay III, chief executive of NextEra Energy Inc., previously known as FPL Group, in Juno Beach, Fla., said 30 states had renewable-energy goals that would compel the construction of 8,000 megawatts of clean power generation each year for the next decade. Given that half the nation's coal-fired capacity is more than 40 years old, he said, there's ample opportunity for states to replace old units with cleaner sources of electricity.
Another motivation for the industry is that regulated utilities are guaranteed a return on any investment approved by state or federal regulators. So a $1 billion investment can produce a return of $100 million a year or so for a typical utility.
Consumers will see the costs of these investments flow into increased utility rates. The industry says the burden will be lightened by the fact that wholesale power prices are currently low—equivalent to 2004 prices—owing to slack fuel costs.
The decision by utilities to press ahead is not without risks. If power prices suddenly rise, for example, regulators could resist additional investments.
But while the new approach isn't as sweeping as federal legislation, which would have reached across industries, Mr. Shapard at Oncor said it was an effective short-term strategy.
"It's like getting Al Capone for tax evasion," he said. "It's not as satisfying as getting him for murder, but it still puts him away."
Write to Rebecca Smith at rebecca.smith@wsj.com
A group of utility executives who once lobbied Congress to cap greenhouse-gas emissions say they are now pressing ahead with their own efforts to clean up the industry.
"We're making our own destiny," said Chris Gould, vice president of corporate strategy for Exelon Corp. in Chicago, the nation's largest owner of nuclear-power plants and one of the biggest backers of the failed "cap and trade" legislation.
The new, take-charge attitude is motivated not only by environmental concerns. The industry has identified what it believes are opportunities to make lucrative investments in such things as transmission lines, advanced meters, enhancements to existing power plants, and electric vehicle infrastructure.
In a blueprint released last week, Exelon executives said their 13-state region could achieve reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions nearly equal to what federal legislation might have achieved in the next decade by pressing ahead with activities already encouraged by state and federal regulators.
Exelon plans to spend more than $5 billion by 2017 in ways that should cut its greenhouse-gas emissions. It includes as much as $290 million a year on energy-efficiency programs at utilities it owns in Illinois and Pennsylvania and $3.8 billion to increase the capacity of its existing nuclear plants by up to 1,500 megawatts.
Bob Shapard, chief executive at Oncor, an energy-delivery company in Dallas, said in an interview that smart meters, electric cars and big transmission projects—such as those able to ferry wind power to cities from remote locations—could trim greenhouse-gas emissions significantly and were a worthy focus of utility investment.
Utility investing over the next few years is likely to develop differently than it would have under a cap-and-trade law. That legislation would have done more to encourage construction of new nuclear plants, for example, by raising the cost of emissions for fossil-fuel generators.
But federal cap-and-trade legislation faltered on fears that it would raise energy and manufacturing costs, making U.S. products costlier at a time when other nations, such as China, are resisting emission limits. The coal lobby also opposed the legislation, which likely would have accelerated the shuttering of old coal-fired power plants.
Some utilities had supported cap-and-trade proposals because they wanted regulatory certainty. The industry often invests in assets with a life of 50 or 60 years, and utilities wanted a federal energy plan that would reduce risk in such investments.
Ted Craver, chief executive of energy company Edison International in Rosemead, Calif., said his company had made every effort to advance greenhouse-gas legislation and that he wasn't keen on investing a lot of time in pleading the case again.
But even though the utilities won't now have the benefit of federal legislation, laws passed in many states require utilities to obtain more energy from renewable or cleaner sources.
Lew Hay III, chief executive of NextEra Energy Inc., previously known as FPL Group, in Juno Beach, Fla., said 30 states had renewable-energy goals that would compel the construction of 8,000 megawatts of clean power generation each year for the next decade. Given that half the nation's coal-fired capacity is more than 40 years old, he said, there's ample opportunity for states to replace old units with cleaner sources of electricity.
Another motivation for the industry is that regulated utilities are guaranteed a return on any investment approved by state or federal regulators. So a $1 billion investment can produce a return of $100 million a year or so for a typical utility.
Consumers will see the costs of these investments flow into increased utility rates. The industry says the burden will be lightened by the fact that wholesale power prices are currently low—equivalent to 2004 prices—owing to slack fuel costs.
The decision by utilities to press ahead is not without risks. If power prices suddenly rise, for example, regulators could resist additional investments.
But while the new approach isn't as sweeping as federal legislation, which would have reached across industries, Mr. Shapard at Oncor said it was an effective short-term strategy.
"It's like getting Al Capone for tax evasion," he said. "It's not as satisfying as getting him for murder, but it still puts him away."
Write to Rebecca Smith at rebecca.smith@wsj.com
World Bank Lauds China Green Energy Moves, Points to Inefficiencies
By SIMON HALL
BEIJING—China is making good progress in meeting targets to get 15% of its energy from non-fossil fuels by 2020, but it needs to improve and expand hydropower generation and deal with high levels of inefficiency in its wind-power sector, the World Bank said Tuesday.
The bank said in a report that China should improve interprovincial trade in renewable energy and better promote green electricity schemes.
"China has achieved remarkable progress in developing renewable energy during the last three decades," Ede Ijjasz, World Bank China Sector Manager for Sustainable Development, said in a statement accompanying the report.
China is already planning a massive expansion of its hydroelectric power sector in its 12th five-year plan—which starts in 2011—despite worries that such schemes can cause environmental and social problems.
Its rapidly growing wind sector is also struggling due to a lack of connections to the country's electricity grid: At the end of 2009, 30% of China's wind farms weren't grid-connected, according to the National Energy Administration.
This is a major problem for China, which is planning a fivefold increase in wind-power generating capacity, to 200 gigawatts in 2020 from 34 gigawatts in mid-2010.
"Hydropower rehabilitation and more rapid and environmentally and socially sound development could achieve the (15%) target at a lower cost because hydropower is already competitive with coal," the report said. "Developing hydropower more quickly would allow for increasing the renewable energy target without increasing the incremental cost of the program."
Under plans the government is finalizing, hydropower's share of the national energy mix, currently around 10% and with a capacity of just over 200 GW, will rise to up to 18% of China's energy needs by 2020, or 350-380 GW, Xinhua News Agency recently reported.
By 2030 this could increase to up to 24% of the total, it said.
China is home to the world's biggest hydroelectric project—the $23 billion Three Gorges Dam on the Yangtze River, completed in 2006 to end centuries of devastating annual floods and to provide energy to fuel China's economic boom.
Critics have long argued that the dam was too expensive, unnecessarily forced 1.4 million people from their homes, increased the risk of landslides and caused serious damage to the Yangtze River's ecology.
Similar concerns have been raised about several new major dams, including a controversial $1.2 billion project under way to build the world's highest dam in Tibet, on the Yarlung Zangbo River, 325 kilometers southeast of Lhasa. It is due to be completed in 2014.
Another project with recent government approval is the $3.3 billion, 2,600-MW Changheba Hydropower plan in China's Sichuan province, to be built by Datang International Power Generation Co.
The World Bank warned that China's wind-power programs were in danger of being blown off course.
"China's experience has been less than optimal in planning wind farms, operational integration and coordination between developers and grid operators," it said.
"If not addressed adequately, the high level of inefficiencies could increase the cost to the nation of the envisaged wind program, which could become prohibitive," it warned.
Write to Simon Hall at simon.hall@dowjones.com
BEIJING—China is making good progress in meeting targets to get 15% of its energy from non-fossil fuels by 2020, but it needs to improve and expand hydropower generation and deal with high levels of inefficiency in its wind-power sector, the World Bank said Tuesday.
The bank said in a report that China should improve interprovincial trade in renewable energy and better promote green electricity schemes.
"China has achieved remarkable progress in developing renewable energy during the last three decades," Ede Ijjasz, World Bank China Sector Manager for Sustainable Development, said in a statement accompanying the report.
China is already planning a massive expansion of its hydroelectric power sector in its 12th five-year plan—which starts in 2011—despite worries that such schemes can cause environmental and social problems.
Its rapidly growing wind sector is also struggling due to a lack of connections to the country's electricity grid: At the end of 2009, 30% of China's wind farms weren't grid-connected, according to the National Energy Administration.
This is a major problem for China, which is planning a fivefold increase in wind-power generating capacity, to 200 gigawatts in 2020 from 34 gigawatts in mid-2010.
"Hydropower rehabilitation and more rapid and environmentally and socially sound development could achieve the (15%) target at a lower cost because hydropower is already competitive with coal," the report said. "Developing hydropower more quickly would allow for increasing the renewable energy target without increasing the incremental cost of the program."
Under plans the government is finalizing, hydropower's share of the national energy mix, currently around 10% and with a capacity of just over 200 GW, will rise to up to 18% of China's energy needs by 2020, or 350-380 GW, Xinhua News Agency recently reported.
By 2030 this could increase to up to 24% of the total, it said.
China is home to the world's biggest hydroelectric project—the $23 billion Three Gorges Dam on the Yangtze River, completed in 2006 to end centuries of devastating annual floods and to provide energy to fuel China's economic boom.
Critics have long argued that the dam was too expensive, unnecessarily forced 1.4 million people from their homes, increased the risk of landslides and caused serious damage to the Yangtze River's ecology.
Similar concerns have been raised about several new major dams, including a controversial $1.2 billion project under way to build the world's highest dam in Tibet, on the Yarlung Zangbo River, 325 kilometers southeast of Lhasa. It is due to be completed in 2014.
Another project with recent government approval is the $3.3 billion, 2,600-MW Changheba Hydropower plan in China's Sichuan province, to be built by Datang International Power Generation Co.
The World Bank warned that China's wind-power programs were in danger of being blown off course.
"China's experience has been less than optimal in planning wind farms, operational integration and coordination between developers and grid operators," it said.
"If not addressed adequately, the high level of inefficiencies could increase the cost to the nation of the envisaged wind program, which could become prohibitive," it warned.
Write to Simon Hall at simon.hall@dowjones.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
